Hi Petr,
On Mar 26, 2024, at 12:14, Petr Špaček wrote:
>> Personally I think we do need people to read a little bit beyond the title
>> if they are going to extract useful meaning from the document. If we accept
>> that to be a reasonable goal then perhaps having a title that seems slightly
On 19. 03. 24 7:15, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review!
On 19 Mar 2024, at 03:28, Chris Box wrote:
It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the
conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up front
in the document. Some
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review!
On 19 Mar 2024, at 03:28, Chris Box wrote:
> It is a little cart-before-horse in having the reasoning occur after the
> conclusion. But I can see the benefit in having a very clear statement up
> front in the document. Some people only read the beginning.
at 10:57 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new
> changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We
> think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication.
>
> This note
since the -01 version was posted. We
>> think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication.
>>
>> This note starts a Working Group Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one.
>>
>> Current version of the draft is available h
no new
changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We
think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication.
This note starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one.
Current version of the draft is available here:
https
On 20 Feb 2024, at 11:55, jab...@strandkip.nl wrote:
> That is some good, arcane DNS knowledge right there, Niall, I like it!
8-)
> [...]
> Perhaps it's worth making it even more clear that this is just a provision
> for AXFR responses by specifying the QTYPE? Something like:
>
> DNS Zone
On 20 Feb 2024, at 12:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> I think it would help, for completeness, and the better
> to support the inexperienced reader of the DNS scriptures,
> to include mention of RFC5936 (AXFR) in the "brief summary
> of the guidance provided in the existing DNS specification"
>
On 15 Feb 2024, at 15:57, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward
and very welcome.
I think it would help, for completeness, and the better
to support the inexperienced reader of the DNS scriptures,
to include mention of RFC5936 (AXFR) in the "brief summary
of the
Hi,
The qdcount draft is brief and straightforward, and there have been no new
changes proposed or issues introduced since the -01 version was posted. We
think there’s likely consensus to advance it for publication.
This note starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one
10 matches
Mail list logo
